INSIDE: - Ontario College of Pharmacists

him that he could not dispense the
prescription because he was unable
to read the fax. A sign by the entry
station in the dispensary clearly and
visibly informed patients that narcotic
prescriptions must be verified
prior to being dispensed. The Member
suggested that the Complainant
obtain a second, legible, prescription
from the medical clinic adjacent
to the pharmacy.
After waiting an hour to see a
physician at the clinic, in obvious
discomfort, the patient was told by
that doctor that he did not prescribe
narcotics, and that he would have
to incur additional time and
for which the prescription was written
was a controlled drug. When he
was unable to reach the physician,
he faxed a copy of the faxed prescription
back to the physician’s
office, but did not receive any reply.
Later that evening, the Complainant
returned to the pharmacy
and presented the Member with the
original paper prescription – the
same one that had been faxed earlier
in the day, only this time it bore
the name of the medication in large
printed letters at the bottom (PER-
COCET ® ). Since the Member was
still suspicious of the prescription,
again he refused to dispense it until
arrest the Complainant. Nonetheless,
the police officer confiscated
the faxed prescription, and told the
Complainant that he would have to
go back to his doctor the following
day. The patient was subsequently
left with no pain management medication.
This incident had serious repercussions
for the Complainant. His
business suffered as a result of the
negative effects of the incident on
his reputation. Furthermore, the
police contacted the Children’s Aid
Society, on the suspicion that the
Complainant and his wife were drug
addicts.
... while being guarded and vigilant regarding
possible forgeries, Members ought to remain
equally open to the possibility of authenticity.
expense to get back to the hospital
to have the original prescribing
physician verify the prescription.
After waiting an hour, the Complainant
travelled with his wife and
daughter to Sunnybrook Hospital,
where he caught the prescribing
physician at the end of his shift.
The physician signed and initialled
the original faxed prescription
again, and commented that the
Member ought to have called his
office for verification.
In fact, only after the patient had
left the pharmacy did the Member
attempt to call the prescribing physician,
assuming that the medication
he could speak to the prescribing
physician the following day.
Furthermore, as he did not
believe that the signature on the
prescription was that of the prescribing
physician, the Member
called the police. The Complainant
waited with the Member for half an
hour until the police arrived. Upon
arrival, the police officer interviewed
all of the parties involved.
The hospital staff confirmed to the
police officer that the Complainant
had attended there that day, and
this detail, coupled with the sling
on the Complainant’s shoulder and
arm, convinced the police not to
The Decision and Reasons
While the Committee noted that
the prescription was ultimately
shown to be authentic, it considered
the faxed copy of it and
agreed that it was illegible. It noted
that the patient did not have a long
history of prescriptions from that
particular doctor, and that there was
no one available to verify the prescription
when the pharmacist
finally called the doctor’s office.
Given these facts, the Committee
did not fault the Member for his
refusal to dispense the prescription.
However, the Committee noted
that there were facts in this case
that could have been considered by
the Member in the exercise of professional
judgment and in consideration
of the patient’s wellbeing.
The fax came directly from Sunnybrook
Hospital -- a well-known
32
Pharmacy Connection January • February 2007